[Bored chemist]

Einstein is simply wrong.
I can think of space without Aether.

It is interesting to note that, as yet, no experiment has demonstrated the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden, yet nobody says that this is due to experimental procedural problems. They simply assume it's because the fairies don't exist.
No experiment has demonstrated the existence of the aether. Has it occurred to you that there might be a really simple reason for this?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

It is common knowledge that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. Whatever is that on which the bind is made is, call it all-permeating aether. Newton called it a string. Einstein revived the aether of the old, call it new aether/spacetime/ cosmological constant, makes no difference what you call it, it is real.

jsaldea12

2.24.10

[Bored chemist]

"It is common knowledge that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. "
It seems to have taken you a while to spot this.
" Whatever is that on which the bind is made is, call it all-permeating aether. "
Calling one thing by the name of another thing is just plain silly.

[Paradigmer]

Einstein revived aether, call it a new aether,.."that it is impossible to think of space without aether on which light propagates.."

I was aware about this Einstein lecture delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. However, you have to understand that the concept of aether even if it was advocated by Einstein does not tantamount as a proof for frame-dragging effect in GR. It's an abuse to mix speculation as fact when delivering a presentation in an argument; this is an act of conveying misleading information.

Btw, never did Einstein ever called it "a new aether".

Please see NASA "Frame dragging of spacetime on orbit of earth".

I have read these before, none of the experiment mentioned there have had stated there was any conclusion.

[Paradigmer]

Einstein is simply wrong.
I can think of space without Aether.

It is interesting to note that, as yet, no experiment has demonstrated the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden, yet nobody says that this is due to experimental procedural problems. They simply assume it's because the fairies don't exist.
No experiment has demonstrated the existence of the aether. Has it occurred to you that there might be a really simple reason for this?

IMHO, Einstein was not wrong. Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt according to its assumptions (such as in Einstein theory of relativity), space without aether could not be comprehensive understood intuitively without the fundamental assumptions, therefore is unthinkable; it is just a leap of faith with the mathematical construct that accepts the "spooky action at a distance" as it is without addressing the causality.

One can also tweak the coordinate system of sound wave in air by interchanging variant time and variant 3D to replace air in a volume therefore this space is void of air, but the transformation result in motion for the source of sound wave would still be equivalent to Doppler effect of sound in the different settings. This is a four-dimensional spacetime continuum in mathematical constuct for sound wave in a vector space void of medium. Under such tweaked setting, one can say time is dilated or length is contracted that is equivalent in principle when the source of the sound in flat spacetime is moving at speeds near to the speed of sound, and the 4D spacetime continuum for sound can be physically distorted in inertial acceleration according to pressure tensor of potential density.

In reality, sound cannot propagate in a vacuum; in a vacuum void of medium there is nothing to vibrate for creating sound wave. Although it could be analytically understood how sound propagates in the above hypothetical construct that does not require the existence of air, it does mean air does not exist.

 
 

[Bored chemist]

Space is space. It's complicated enough without adding a mysterious "aether" to it.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

I agree. That frame dragging of spacetime, as announced by NASA, is not conclusive. But I agree, the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt.


jsaldea12

2.25.10

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

I agree: Einstein is not wrong. I have to say aether of old and new aether, just to make distinction terminology, but both are one and the same: when we take out the concept that aether of old is erroneously conceived of as “luminiferous”. But the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven.

Jsaldea12

2.25.10

[Paradigmer]

IMHO, Einstein was not wrong. Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt according to its assumptions (such as in Einstein theory of relativity), space without aether could not be comprehensive understood intuitively without the fundamental assumptions, therefore is unthinkable; it is just a leap of faith with the mathematical construct that accepts the "spooky action at a distance" as it is without addressing the causality. 

Typo error correction.

Instead of:

     Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt....

It should be:

     Although space without aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construct....

Apology for the mistakes, especially the critical one.

[Paradigmer]

Space is space. It's complicated enough without adding a mysterious "aether" to it.

You seems like stating space is invariant as in general term like it was referred to the 3D Eucidean space, or are you stating that space is variant like it was referred to the complex Minkowski space with four-dimensional real vector space in a mathematical construct used for special relativity?

Can you please clarify what you meant by your tautology on "Space is space", a simple definition would suffice.

[Paradigmer]

But I agree, the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt.jsaldea12

One can agree with a third party proposition, correct or not is another issue, but technically one cannot agree with his own proposition that is construed in his own opinion, especially if it is defined with self definition; this is self-referencing and therefore unfalsifiable.

Although you mentioned you agreed that frame dragging of spacetime, as announced by NASA, is not conclusive, yet you stated that "the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt", this is a self contridicting statement; it is a logical fallacy that falls apart under its own context.

Logical arguments of such as quoted above would not help you at all in what you are positing.

[Bored chemist]

Whatever properties space (by whatever definition) has, it has those properties.
Sticking a new label like "aether" on it achieves nothing and promotes confusion. Relabelling it doesn't alter those properties.

[Paradigmer]

..In his later life, in a press conference in which the press asked Dr. Einstein about his GR. Dr. Einstein remarked something like this, “I cannot anymore recognized my relativity.. so many hands had dipped their fingers into it”.

It is famously known that Einstein had mentioned: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,I do not understand it myself anymore.” to rebut the mathematicians, but I have mot heard of what you have mentioned as quoted above. Was this in another language you have made the translation? Would you care to provide the source and the circumstances where and when Einstein said that? 

[Paradigmer]

I agree: Einstein is not wrong. I have to say aether of old and new aether, just to make distinction terminology, but both are one and the same: when we take out the concept that aether of old is erroneously conceived of as “luminiferous”. But the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven.

I can understand your argument on aether and spacetime is the same thing, but why does the term "luminiferous" would make a different. Why do you think it is incorrect for the classical concept that postulate aether is the medium wherein light could propogate.   

You can say it is discernable that aether and spacetime is the same thing, but why did you say that the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven?

[Paradigmer]

Whatever properties space (by whatever definition) has, it has those properties.
Sticking a new label like "aether" on it achieves nothing and promotes confusion. Relabelling it doesn't alter those properties.

Einstein coined the term "spacetime", in the lecture delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden, Einstein was trying to tell the world what he meant by spacetime.

It was not like a third party trying to interpet what Einstein meant by the word "spacetime", it was the author of "Theory of relativity" who had published his papers since 1905 thru 1915, which had thus began the era of modern physics, and Einstein by himself, not through another party, was trying to tell the world in 1920 with his definitions to clarify what he meant by spacetime.

Other then the 1920 lecture in the University of Leyden, Einstein had also made several notable astute statements on space and time, here are two of them:

“Time and space are modes in which we think
and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Both of us agree: Einstein is not wrong.  But  permit to add further: that asether exists is not a matter of faith. It can be proven by scientists like us.

Jsaldea12

2.25.

[Bored chemist]

Both of us agree: Einstein is not wrong.  But  permit to add further: that asether exists is not a matter of faith. It can be proven by scientists like us.

Jsaldea12

2.25.

No.
We won't permit that.
The aether doesn't exist- if it did the M M experiment would have found it.

If you choose to label breakfast cereal as Aether then say because breakfast cereal exists then you know thar Aether exists you are being silly.
Choosing "spacetime" rather than "breakfast cereal" doesn't make it any less silly.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

It is common knowledge, even to shcool children, that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. Whatever is that on which the bind is made is, that visibly raises millions of tons on earth,has substance, Who  questions that there is an invisible substance on which the bind is made as evidenced by the ocular raising of millions of tons of water on earth?.Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

jsaldea12

2.24.10

[BenV]

Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

I think you're both arguing the same point - it's normally called spacetime, why bother calling it aether?

[Paradigmer]

Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

I think you're both arguing the same point - it's normally called spacetime, why bother calling it aether?

There are clear distinctions.

In mathematical relativism, the concept of spacetime continuum posit space is empty, space and time are interchangeable in the 4D hypothetical construct and they both are variants. This is the modern physics concept that currently dominates mainstrean in its thought.

The concept of aether postulates this medium is all pervasive in space, this concept posit space and time are invariants. This is the classical physics concept.

These different concepts would lead to entirely different propositions in their hypotheses for the same empirically observed phenomena when different definitions for time and space were adopted. The twin paradox in special relativity is one exanple, despite this hypothesis was widely popular among the mathematical relativists, Einstein did not endorse it. A few of some other examples are the quantitatively proven relativistic muon experiment and the atomic clock experiment. Richard Fenyman cited the anornalies for the muon experiment and did not endorse that it was referred to reality, only suggest to adopt it because it works and it was useful in applied science baring no better understanding of it was available. As for the atomic clock experiment, it had led to opposite opinions for was it time that had became slower or was it the atomic clock that had become slower in higher gravitational potential. These have repurcusions to other extraplolated relativistic theories such as time travel and those active transformations in special relativity that were construed and deduced in mathematical treatments.     

Food for thought.